Chapter 33 questions

[righter101]

Hey there everyone. I am getting in to a section of the IBC that I don't visit much (as most of our construction is rural residential).

My reading of table 3306.1 indicates that the required levels of protection are based entirely on "distance from construction to lot line". This would seem to deal with public sidewalks adjacent to a building under construciton.

I have an instance with an apartment rehabilitation project going on. They have 5 or 6 apartment buildings, sidewalks between them. Any true public sidewalks on the edges of the parcel are not near the construction.

There are some open trenches and residing work going on. The contrator has placed a few stakes in the ground with orange mesh netting around the areas.

Is this sufficient? Would any of the CH 33 requirements be applicable? When I look at 3306, it seems there is an intent to protect pedestrians, but it generally refers to the table which is essentially protection for pedestrian traffic near the site, not within the site.

Thoughts?? Feedback??

Thanks.

 

[Lynn]

I believe 3302.1 would require the safeguards unless you meet one of the two exception listed.

 

[Glennman CBO]

3301.1 scope. Protection of adjacent public and private properties, and construction activites.

 

[north star]

+ +

OSHA and the insurance company for the property owner and

the contractor [ typically ] considers everyone a pedestrian.

IMO, ...the intent is to prevent anyone from falling in to an

open area [ i.e. - litigation ] that the contractor has created.

I'm guessing that even pets might be subject to such

protection........You know how litigious this country is!



+ +

 

[righter101]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I didn't explain this quite clearly enough. I have read and understand the scoping provisions, but my dilema is this. 3306.1 addresses pedestrian protection and states that peds shall be protected.... "as required by this chapter and table 3306.1" This table provides the only clear if-then when a barrier or covered walkway or railing is required.

The reading of the table appears only to deal with construction distance to the lot line, which in this case, the construction is well away from any lot lines. There are pathways throughout these apartments and I am trying to determine if I can legally require, through CH 33, that fences or barriers be erected.

Looking at table 3306.1, it doesn't seem to account for work within a single site, rather, focuses on lot line distance.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code. A literal reading of the code would indicate that "pedestrian protection" is only required if the activity is close to a lot line.

Does my dilema make sense.

I think they should have barriers or railings but I am not sure if I can get there from Ch 33.

 

[righter101]

I believe 3302.1 would require the safeguards unless you meet one of the two exception listed.

This project is 8 apartment buildings (separate, but all on the same lot). The work is mainly siding replacement, building by building and some excavation between buildings.

Picture all the buildings being in a single line running north to south. A sidewalk runs the length of all the buildings. Each building has a branch off the sidewalk to serve the individual buildings.

All of this is 40-60 feet away from the "lot line".

How can I use Chapter 33 to require pedestrian protection??

I want to, but reading 3306.1 and the subsequent table, it only deals with lot line distance, which would appear to exclude these instances.

Thanks for the input.

 

[brudgers]

Maybe I am missing something,

Yep, it's not within your scope. You probably don't inspect cranes either.

 

[brudgers]

How can I use Chapter 33 to require pedestrian protection??

Improperly

 

[north star]

= =

righter101,

Are the sidewalks used as exits to the Public Way?.....If

so, then, IMO, ...**Lynn** has listed the applicable code

section to use.

If the openings /trenches are next to the sidewalks, then

either install guardrailing [ the "more than 30 inches above

grade" thingy ], or safety/orange construction railing.

You want to [ attempt ] to prevent the passerby pedestrians

from falling in to the openings.

Is this your scenario?....Do your sidewalks serve as the

"required exits" from the buildings?



+ +

 

[righter101]

Improperly

If it is close enough to a lot line, then it would be required by CH 33.

I was seeking helpful discussion from others to see if there were historic (UBC) codes that dealt with pedestrian access within construction sites, not just adjacent too. or similar feedback as to the intent of the code and possibly if anyone had helpful information, as 2 of the posters have offered.

Thanks though, my Christmas wish of cynicism and sarcasm was filled early....

 

[mtlogcabin]

3301.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall govern safety during construction and the protection of adjacent public and private properties.

3306.1 is there to protect people on other properties not the one the work is being performed on.

3310.2 Maintenance of means of egress.

Required means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

I still don't believe this gives you the authority to require anything but that the egress be maintained not protected.

 

[righter101]

3301.1 Scope.The provisions of this chapter shall govern safety during construction and the protection of adjacent public and private properties.

3306.1 is there to protect people on other properties not the one the work is being performed on.

3310.2 Maintenance of means of egress.

Required means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

I still don't believe this gives you the authority to require anything but that the egress be maintained not protected.

I agree. Thanks for the feedback. Since our jurisdiction is primiarly residential, I was reading this section after a tenant complained about construction activity. My clear reading of the code indicated this but I wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.

 

[brudgers]

If it is close enough to a lot line, then it would be required by CH 33. I was seeking helpful discussion from others to see if there were historic (UBC) codes that dealt with pedestrian access within construction sites, not just adjacent too. or similar feedback as to the intent of the code and possibly if anyone had helpful information, as 2 of the posters have offered. Thanks though, my Christmas wish of cynicism and sarcasm was filled early....

Your question seeking ways in which you could use chapter 33 to require protection, was asked in your third post in this thread. In that post, as in your two previous posts, you had acknowledged understanding that the provisions you wished to enforce were not required by the code.

In short, you had a solution for which you were trying to create a problem.

Given your commitment to applying the code improperly, I didn't have stomach for watching a trainwreck of rationalizations unfold.

So for the sake of efficiency, I just cut to the chase.

What is cynical in this thread, is not my comment - it is bluntly factual.

No, what is cynical in this thread is your eagerness to apply the code beyond its scope while being fully aware that you are doing so.

Furthermore, your brand of cynicism tars the professional reputation of all code officials.

My hope is that Santa brings you a pair.

 

[righter101]

Your question seeking ways in which you could use chapter 33 to require protection, was asked in your third post in this thread. In that post, as in your two previous posts, you had acknowledged understanding that the provisions you wished to enforce were not required by the code.

In short, you had a solution for which you were trying to create a problem.

Given your commitment to applying the code improperly, I didn't have stomach for watching a trainwreck of rationalizations unfold.

So for the sake of efficiency, I just cut to the chase.

What is cynical in this thread, is not my comment - it is bluntly factual.

No, what is cynical in this thread is your eagerness to apply the code beyond its scope while being fully aware that you are doing so.

Furthermore, your brand of cynicism tars the professional reputation of all code officials.

My hope is that Santa brings you a pair.

The only thing exceeding your incorrect assessment of me and this situation is how far out of line you are.

 

[mtlogcabin]

So for the sake of efficiency, I just cut to the chase

Cutting to the chase would have been telling him his gut reaction was correct and he could not use Chapter 33 in the way his heart wanted to. Nobody wants to see anybody injured through neglect or stupidity as the code does not cover every situation and that is all he was asking.

Ecouragement is much more educational and reasurring and that is all he was asking for. "Maybe I am missing something" Like the majority of post on this board he was asking for assistance and confirmation his application of the code was correct.

Brudgers you are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to codes and construction and it did not come about in the first few years of your proffession use use it to help and encourage not discourage.

 

[brudgers]

Cutting to the chase would have been telling him his gut reaction was correct and he could not use Chapter 33 in the way his heart wanted to. Nobody wants to see anybody injured through neglect or stupidity as the code does not cover every situation and that is all he was asking. Ecouragement is much more educational and reasurring and that is all he was asking for. "Maybe I am missing something" Like the majority of post on this board he was asking for assistance and confirmation his application of the code was correct. Brudgers you are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to codes and construction and it did not come about in the first few years of your proffession use use it to help and encourage not discourage.

If he had been asking for guidance in applying the code, your comments would accurately describe the situation. However, his post explicitly requested rationales for misapplying the code with full acknowledgement that he intended to misapply it.

In other words, what he stated he was missing was not an understanding of the code, but rather a plausible misunderstanding which would allow him to require something which was not required.

After directly acknowledging in three posts that what he wanted to require was not clearly not required, the suggestion that he didn't understand the code beggars belief.

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/10021-chapter-33-questions.html#post93750

 

[tmurray]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I didn't explain this quite clearly enough. I have read and understand the scoping provisions, but my dilema is this. 3306.1 addresses pedestrian protection and states that peds shall be protected.... "as required by this chapter and table 3306.1" This table provides the only clear if-then when a barrier or covered walkway or railing is required.The reading of the table appears only to deal with construction distance to the lot line, which in this case, the construction is well away from any lot lines. There are pathways throughout these apartments and I am trying to determine if I can legally require, through CH 33, that fences or barriers be erected.

Looking at table 3306.1, it doesn't seem to account for work within a single site, rather, focuses on lot line distance.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code. A literal reading of the code would indicate that "pedestrian protection" is only required if the activity is close to a lot line.

Does my dilema make sense.

I think they should have barriers or railings but I am not sure if I can get there from Ch 33.

People moving about a construction site generally do so with more care than the general public exercises when walking down a public sidewalk. The lines are blurred in this situation since the pedestrians are accessing the construction site. The main thing would be making these people aware they are accessing a construction site when they are exiting their building (such as a sign). While it does not appear you can force a contractor to provide any kind of protection, it might do some good to raise your concerns with him and let him know that you'd hate to see the project held up because someone fell into an open trench and new the investigators shut the site down for a couple days while their investigation is ongoing.

 

[righter101]

People moving about a construction site generally do so with more care than the general public exercises when walking down a public sidewalk. The lines are blurred in this situation since the pedestrians are accessing the construction site. The main thing would be making these people aware they are accessing a construction site when they are exiting their building (such as a sign). While it does not appear you can force a contractor to provide any kind of protection, it might do some good to raise your concerns with him and let him know that you'd hate to see the project held up because someone fell into an open trench and new the investigators shut the site down for a couple days while their investigation is ongoing.

Thank you for your feedback. I was trying to determine whether or not the code addressed this specific situation and it is clear that it doesn't. The discussion from contributors was very helpful.

I will simply refer this to OSHA if I feel unsafe conditions exist in this workplace, as it appears to fall under their purview.

 

[kilitact]

The only thing exceeding your incorrect assessment of me and this situation is how far out of line you are.

I think it would be helpful for brudgers to read the entire post(s).

 

[brudgers]

I think it would be helpful for brudgers to read the entire post(s).

Three times he explained he didn't think guards were required. Three times he explained that he wanted them, anyway. The third time, he asked the forum for supporting rationalizations when shoving them down the contractor's throat. I just pointed out the obvious. No matter what anyone posted, he would be knowingly going beyond the code.

 

[brudgers]

Thank you for your feedback. I was trying to determine whether or not the code addressed this specific situation and it is clear that it doesn't. The discussion from contributors was very helpful. I will simply refer this to OSHA if I feel unsafe conditions exist in this workplace, as it appears to fall under their purview.

Sure you still don't want to try to BS your way through with something from the UBC?

 

[mtlogcabin]

The third time, he asked the forum for supporting rationalizations when shoving them down the contractor's throat

No he did not

but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code

He was just wanting assurance that he was applying the code properly.

 

[brudgers]

That's only part of the context.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code. A literal reading of the code would indicate that "pedestrian protection" is only required if the activity is close to a lot line. Does my dilema make sense. I think they should have barriers or railings but I am not sure if I can get there from Ch 33.

So let's break it down: The "missing something" is a rationale for requiring the barriers.

"Support with code" is a non-literal reading.

The dilemma is "the code doesn't require it" versus "I want it required."

He is looking for a way to "should" on the contractor using a non-literal interpretation of the code.

Thus the direct solicitation for plausible misreadings in the next post.

 

[righter101]

So lets break it down:

Someone called and reported concerns with a jobsite involving permitted work.

I took the complaint and read CH 33.

From a reading of CH 33 it appeared that the IBC would not govern in this instance.

The site was and still is dangerous.

I don't have a callous disregard for human life and safety.

I asked this forum for POV's on this section in the code.

Most posters posted helpful information. My original reading that the code could not be applied in this situation was confirmed.

That a dangerous situation exists has not changed.

That another agency will be the ones to enforce it is really the matter at hand.

Brugers makes FALSE assumptions and interpretations concerning posters motives, stating them as "facts" that he believes he has uncovered.

Brugers posts in a condescending, bordeline libelous manner.

Nothing new. Great building code forum. Same brugers.